New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

So - 467 pages in - have we figured out who is winning?

What do you think?

 

[Rmfnlt]

So - 467 pages in - have we figured out who is winning?

Based on my unbiased opinion.....

I AM!!!!!

 

[Goose]

So - 467 pages in - have we figured out who is winning?

 

[iced]

Have to imagine it's even more important for Carson and Inglewood to meet time requirements, since the teams will be renting out temporary venues for the construction process. Carson is already taking a long time even without delays, if something gets snagged up, as they so often do, it could really hurt the NFLs chances at sticking the landing in LA. Same with Inglewood, but they probably have a wider margin for error due to having two years on Carson.

Except Goldman Sachs has agreed to renovate/pay for upgrades for whatever temproary stadium they play in, for the Carson plan - so it wouldn't be as bad or low quality as you think

 

[OldSchool]

So - 467 pages in - have we figured out who is winning?

The Globe Trotters are up big at the half.

 

[RamFan503]

So - 467 pages in - have we figured out who is winning?

The google search bot?

 

[RamFan503]

Except Goldman Sachs has agreed to renovate/pay for upgrades for whatever temproary stadium they play in, for the Carson plan - so it wouldn't be as bad or low quality as you think

Maybe so. Still don't think there's any desire for a 5 year rental as far as the NFL is concerned. Personally, I'm thinking more and more that the Carson project is a pipe dream. I seriously would not want to be going to a game in that arm pit. No offense to anyone who lives there but.... YEESH!

 

[RamFan503]

Which land are you talking about?

The Ripper answered it but it's the portion of the Mission Valley site that SD plans to sell.

 

[blue4]

That's an opinion. But I find it hard to believe that top tier status won't at least be part of the approval criteria for the new stadium. I'm not saying that there will be a clause like the dome but that when the project is approved and built, it will likely have to reach that status. It may be the only way the NFL can approve the new stadium, make a case to turn down Stan in his quest to the west, and save face among the owners. If the project falls short of doing that, I think the project is going nowhere.

Top tier status again is a non starter for me. This stuff is flat getting unreasonable. The notion that a billion dollar building becomes obsolete because it's not as new as the last 8 built is crazy to me. It's unsustainable for most cities. You know how much I want this St Louis stadium. But at a certain point you have to do what's best for everyone and the city and top tier clause again ain't it IMO. Build a nice stadium, get a 25-30 year you ain't leaving anytime soon lease. If that's not good enough for the NFL, then congrats to LA. Maybe we will try again in expansion, or maybe Davis grows a brain and saves his pathetic franchise by moving in. Either way, to quote one of my buddies at work, shit's got to stop.

 

[RamFan503]

Top tier status again is a non starter for me. This stuff is flat getting unreasonable. The notion that a billion dollar building becomes obsolete because it's not as new as the last 8 built is crazy to me. It's unsustainable for most cities. You know how much I want this St Louis stadium. But at a certain point you have to do what's best for everyone and the city and top tier clause again ain't it IMO. Build a nice stadium, get a 25-30 year you ain't leaving anytime soon lease. If that's not good enough for the NFL, then congrats to LA. Maybe we will try again in expansion, or maybe Davis grows a brain and saves his pathetic franchise by moving in. Either way, to quote one of my buddies at work, crap's got to stop.

I agree that it is ridiculous. But I seriously doubt the NFL is going to approve plans for a brand new stadium that doesn't meet that criteria. I'm not arguing in favor of it. It absolutely is unreasonable to expect as far as I'm concerned as well. What I'm saying is that St Louis had a top tier requirement in the Dome agreement. The dome agreement - like it or not (not) - was a big key in bringing the Rams to St Louis. The CVC declined to bring the Dome up to top tier status (again, I'm not arguing that they necessarily should have).

I find it highly unlikely that the NFL owners are going to look at St Louis and tell them that none of that top tier language matters anymore now that the dome is not involved. They are going to at minimum IMO expect that the new stadium will be top tier at the time it is built. I'm not talking 5 or 10 years down the road. But I am guessing that they are not going to just ignore the fact that the CVC didn't keep up their end of the deal in the first lease and then just give them a pass on the new stadium. I find that to be a very hard thing to sell to the owners whether we all like it or not. And I'm quite certain Stan is not going to sign on to anything that starts out with him at a distinct market disadvantage.

Keep in mind that I don't know in reality by what criteria they judge "top tier". The Riverfront stadium as it is being presented may indeed qualify. I just think it will have to no matter how much we fans really care about the issue.

It's funny. When I used to go to the games in the Coliseum, I thought it was a great place to watch FOOTBALL. I never once thought of it as an old, run down stadium. I was there to watch football and in particular MY RAMS play. I have been to many stadiums. And though I get a first impression of the stadium, once the game starts, I could care less. Put in a few more bathrooms and make sure thugs aren't hanging out in them. Get people that want to move fans through the beer and hot dog line. THAT is top tier to me.

I will say though - the Big A sucked out loud as a football stadium. Even the good seats sucked.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Except Goldman Sachs has agreed to renovate/pay for upgrades for whatever temproary stadium they play in, for the Carson plan - so it wouldn't be as bad or low quality as you think

That doesn't have to do with anything though. I don't expect Goldman Sachs to go and drop a bunch of money into a temporary stadium, unless there's some sort of emergency and it's damaged or something to that effect. I'd be very shocked if they go and throw tens or hundreds of millions more at a temporary venue.

However it's just that I'd imagine that the NFL doesn't want to spend a long time in temporary venues, and they're already planning on 4 years in those for Carson. I think they're okay with that, but I doubt they want to spend any longer there, and due to all the complications and missteps by Carson already, they could be worried that additional issues could delay the stadium even more.

If the NFL is so worried about making sure they get LA right, then you have to think they want a good stadium, built quickly, and without issue. Carson can't hit on one of them, and they've had enough issues that give cause for concern there. After weighing in on everything they can still be comfortable with going forward on Carson, and it seems right now they're comfortable with it, but those have to be things they factor in. It's already a risk trying to stick two teams in LA after having zero, and to do it in a stadium that has a lot of questions, and will take over twice as long as the alternative increases that risk. The political infighting, gaffs, and fan bases already antagonizing each other, can't give owners the warm and fuzzies over Carson.

 

[The Ripper]

Has nothing to do with the new stadium, however.

Of course it does. Do you actually think that Shaw would put in place an out clause that put the Rams in a worse position?

 

[The Ripper]

So - 467 pages in - have we figured out who is winning?

Yes, the NFL.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Keep in mind that I don't know in reality by what criteria they judge "top tier". The Riverfront stadium as it is being presented may indeed qualify. I just think it will have to no matter how much we fans really care about the issue.

I was looking around the only thing I found was an article from St Louis Today that discussed some of them. Here's an excerpt:

The Dome must be deemed first tier in each of 15 categories, though the lease doesn't spell exactly what would make each of those areas first tier. The categories include:

• Fan amenities, such as box suites, club seats, lounges and any other public areas, including elevators and escalators.

• Technical areas, such as scoreboards, lighting, sound, computer and emergency systems, as well "advertising infrastructure in, on and around the facilities."

• Revenue-generating facilities, such as food-preparation areas, shops, concession stalls and box offices.


• Behind-the-scenes areas related to the team, such as locker rooms, coaches' offices and training facilities.

If there's any good news in the lease for the CVC, it's that the number of seats and luxury boxes are excluded from first-tier consideration. About 66,000 fans can now attend football games at the Dome, which boasts 120 luxury suites and 6,400 club seats. Those numbers aren't required to change.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_ce4f8963-370f-52a9-8719-47f91c809678.html


This was back in 2012, so I don't think it changed too much. Riverfront is about 4,000 seats shy of the 66,000, but 62,000 might be okay if they have enough luxury suits and club seats. Although if they're going to go off of market studies they may elect to go with fewer so they don't have issues filling them. However if the market studies also deem that they couldn't support a 'first tier' stadium that could be a problem as well. Potentially a dammed if you do dammed if you don't situation. The article also mentions at the bottom things that new technological achievements that new stadiums offer that make the first tier that the stadium might have issues implementing. Doesn't really indicate what the other categories are other than those 4.

 

[RamFan503]

Just an additional thought. One of the projects that was supposed to go on to the Carson site was a Walmart that never happened. Wouldn't that mean that Stan has some pretty good intel on that site and could have bought that location for far less than Inglewood? Just throwing that out there.

 

[iced]

Maybe so. Still don't think there's any desire for a 5 year rental as far as the NFL is concerned. Personally, I'm thinking more and more that the Carson project is a pipe dream. I seriously would not want to be going to a game in that arm pit. No offense to anyone who lives there but.... YEESH!

If they clean it up I don't think it'll truly matter in the end - yea of course it's not appealing right now; but there have been plenty of properties throughout time that were once desolate that now look amazing.

That doesn't have to do with anything though. I don't expect Goldman Sachs to go and drop a bunch of money into a temporary stadium, unless there's some sort of emergency and it's damaged or something to that effect. I'd be very shocked if they go and throw tens or hundreds of millions more at a temporary venue.

Been part of their Carson plan from the get go

However it's just that I'd imagine that the NFL doesn't want to spend a long time in temporary venues, and they're already planning on 4 years in those for Carson. .

well they have to play somewhere - and offering to spruce up the temporary stadium is a smart idea on their part. Will help draw the fans to see the teams play at an upgraded temporary stadium while also giving them a back up should an emergency arise as you mentioned - Which also could be used for other games like Rose bowls, etc.

If the NFL is so worried about making sure they get LA right, then you have to think they want a good stadium, built quickly, and without issue. .

Exactly why I don't think time is a factor - waiting a couple years will pale in comparison to the revenue streams they can/will capitalize on, particularly those tv contracts. I think that's the real deadline the NFL would have in mind

 

[OldSchool]

Just an additional thought. One of the projects that was supposed to go on to the Carson site was a Walmart that never happened. Wouldn't that mean that Stan has some pretty good intel on that site and could have bought that location for far less than Inglewood? Just throwing that out there.

To add to this, how bad must the site be to reclaim that they wouldn't even build a Walmart there!

 

[ChrisW]

To add to this, how bad must the site be to reclaim that they wouldn't even build a Walmart there!

I'm pretty sure Walmart failed to build on the Inglewood site too.

 

[RamFan503]

Exactly why I don't think time is a factor - waiting a couple years will pale in comparison to the revenue streams they can/will capitalize on, particularly those tv contracts. I think that's the real deadline the NFL would have in mind

Can't see it. If the Carson project is feared to take 4 years IMO they really dock it points. 5 years? Dead in the water. Just my opinion of course but I can't see the NFL wanting a team to play in a temporary stadium for that long. When has that ever been the case?

 

[The Ripper]

Top tier status again is a non starter for me. This stuff is flat getting unreasonable. The notion that a billion dollar building becomes obsolete because it's not as new as the last 8 built is crazy to me. It's unsustainable for most cities. You know how much I want this St Louis stadium. But at a certain point you have to do what's best for everyone and the city and top tier clause again ain't it IMO. Build a nice stadium, get a 25-30 year you ain't leaving anytime soon lease. If that's not good enough for the NFL, then congrats to LA. Maybe we will try again in expansion, or maybe Davis grows a brain and saves his pathetic franchise by moving in. Either way, to quote one of my buddies at work, crap's got to stop.

It's only a $600 million stadium. The stadium in SD is $ 950 million.

I ran the numbers for construction estimates for labor, SD is 18% and St Louis is 26%., SD materials 3% and St Louis 1% less. It's compared to the national average. The numbers come from Simsol Property Estimating Software and I just updated the commercial database.